Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Proposition: Helen Maag (HB Woodlawn) vs. Opposition: Teresa Nuckolls (University Middle School)

Judge: Brittney Bleyle (Austin Peay State University)

Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.

  • Helen Maag
    Helen Maag

    Teresa Nuckolls
    Teresa Nuckolls
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 25, 2020 07:03:36PM EST by Helen Maag



    native workers often do better in the presence of more migrants in the labor force

    Posted at May 26, 2020 08:24:59PM EST by Teresa Nuckolls



    Posted at May 27, 2020 04:01:09PM EST by Helen Maag



    same as before

    Posted at May 28, 2020 07:58:53PM EST by Teresa Nuckolls



    Judge please consider flowing my overtime thank you

    Same as last time as well as

    Posted at May 29, 2020 02:02:13PM EST by Helen Maag



    same as first speech


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 30, 2020 10:00:18PM EST by Brittney Bleyle

    Category Helen Maag Teresa Nuckolls
    Use of evidence: 4.2 4
    Delivery skill: 4.6 4.6
    Coherence of arguments: 5.1 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 4.5
    Identification of key points: 5 4
    Comments: Great debate! I would focus on the framing arguments more so in your closing. You did a great job in the beginning with setting the framing for the debate, remember to continue throughout the debate. Great debate! I thought the counterplan was interesting and definitely viable, but you need more answers to "why can't we do both?" as well as more disadvantages to the proposition in general. The labeling disad was one, but the proposition was able to answer it pretty effectively.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Helen Maag

    Reason for Decision:

    I ended up voting for the proposition. I believe the proposition's arguments for why we can allow legal refugees into the country as well as all others are persuasive. In policy debate, we would call this argument perm do both, because the proposition is proposing a permutation of their arguments as well as the opposition's counterplan arguments. The only disadvantage I can possibly see to the permutation would be the labeling disadvantage, i.e. it is harmful to label some people as legal refugees and label others as not; however, I don't see why this means that we will label others as "illegal" refugees. The argument seems to be in the world of the proposition, legal refugees will be allowed in as well as all others that don't fit into that category, therefore creating multiple separate labels of legal immigration. The link to this labeling disadvantage seems a little weak to me. I need more framing arguments from the opposition as to why permutations like these are bad, as well as other disadvantages to the proposition's plan. Lastly, I'm not sure where the opposition is going with the argument about the status quo legal refugee policies under the Trump administration. I need more warrants and analysis as to why these polices show that all future polices will fail and be as harmful as these policies are.


    Thank you! I really liked how you made a counterplan - Helen Maag on May 31, 2020 at 09:57AM EST
    Great Job Helen. You had a really strong case - Teresa Nuckolls on May 30, 2020 at 10:11PM EST

    Add Comment

    Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.

    Connect with Binghamton:
    Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

    Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by: